Skip to main content

About your Search

20121101
20121130
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7
in the u.s. to be detained without charge or trial. the f.b.i. and other law enforcement agencies have proven time and time again that they are up to the challenge of detecting, stopping, arresting and convicting terrorists found on u.s. soil. having successly arrested, -- successfully detained, arrested, convicted hundreds of these heinous people both before and after 9/11. for example, since january, 2009, 98 individuals have been successfully arrested inside the united states by the f.b.i. and other federal or local law enforcement officers on terrorism-related charges. last month, staff of the senate intelligence committee compiled a list of the 95 individuals arrested in the past four years as part of more than 50 different terrorism investigations. the list was based on publicly available information from the f.b.i., the congressional research service and media reports. and i have it here and i would like to enter that list into the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. feinstein: thank you very much. it is also important to understand that suspected terrorists w
on the specifics of the investigation. the fbi has its own protocols in terms of how they proceed. and i'm going to let director mueller and others examine those protocols, and make some statements to the public generally. i do want to emphasize what i said before. general petraeus had an extraordinary career. deserved this country with great distinction in iraq, in afghanistan, and as head of the cia. by his own assessment, he did not meet the standards that he felt were necessary as the director of cia with respect to this personal matter that he is now dealing with, with his family, and with his wife. and it's on that basis that he tendered his resignation, and it's on that basis that i accepted it. but i want to emphasize that from my perspective at least, he has provided this country and extraordinary service. we are safer because of the work that dave petraeus has done, and my main hope right now is that he and his family are able to move on, and that this instead of being -- this into a being a single side note on what has been otherwise been an extraordinary career. [inaudible] >> you kn
coastal town in california. he was the subject, on the fbi most wanted list and responsible for 20 murders in boston. no american official knew where he was. it's hard to prove negatives but we have 6000 documents from the bin laden compound that have been translated. if there's there is a smoking gun, proving official pakistani passivity operations are not so good that we would not pointed out publicly at this point. >> the difference between diplomats and journalists is that journalists say more than they know and diplomats no morew more than they say. but we are in harmony on this one. [laughter] there is no evidence i have seen that there was high-level complicity or knowledge about him being in abbottabad. this led to the problem that if you don't know you can be a accused of and confidence in this was a domestic issue but that is a different question than we are talking about. there is to my knowledge no evidence that they knew that he was there during that time. >> one quick follow up, al qaeda tried to kill general musharraf. al qaeda was at war with the pakistani state and the pak
qaeda? is that right? so if our military is authorized to use force, they don't have to call the f.b.i. or the virginia state police to shoot. they can shoot themselves against an enemy coming at them in america. mr. levin: coming here and attacking us, a navy base or at a -- mr. graham: sliewlg. right. because we're not fighting a crime. we don't have to disarm our military and call the local cops, "would you please shoot these people they get here." no, we're going to shoot you. if you get in a boat asked to attack a military ship or boat in the united states, we're going to shoot you. and if we wound you, we're going to capture you. and then here's what we're going to do to you, incident of using force. the supreme court has said that when you authorize to use force, it makes no sense to give that authorization if you don't have the power to detain. because the worst thing you could do to the american military is to make them to kill everybody and capture no one. or let the other -- or let them go. so kill them all is not good policy and it's a bad spot to put your military in, and
are not having a war on your orders and making sure the international community sends billions of fbi success and making sure that the people see results for their elections, and political success is making sure that hamas and gaza doesn't govern the relationship with egypt but that egypt governs the relationship with a hamas. if this is the root of the government of egypt pursues, then the potential for the working relationship with israel is possible. if it tries to achieve political success in the it the logical means, then we in the united states will be in a very difficult position and the israelis will be in an even more difficult position. .. >> you have a question earlier. no? okay, howard. >> ten years ago we were frantically trying to buy stinger missiles in bosnia should probably gotten there from afghanistan. the question i have come is if we do consider legal support to the syria and freedom fighters, how do we manage especially when it comes to no presence at all, how do we manage to control where those go and how they might get used? >> when i made a reference to seeing the nee
the fbi that is the national organization that has the resources to do the things that local jurisdictions, whether state or local don't have the resources to do. i believe that it's possible to have speed you can see this "washington journal" segment at our website, c-span.org. live now to the senate floor on foreign relations for remarks from the recommendations commission chair julius genachowski. is expected to discuss international telecommunications policy. this is just getting underway. >> very excited to be here today. is perhaps the most anticipated cfr event and much as the new james bond movie. i'm glad that chairman could join us today. just a quick introduction, prior to his fcc opponent, chairman genachowski was chief of business operations before that general counsel at iac interactive corp., special advisor and cofounder of the technology incubator lunchbox digital. his full bio is in your packages. i will turn over to the chairman for some quick opening remarks. we'll been going to the conversation where i follow up with some questions, and then after that we will open up
don't have the fbi interviews of the survivors conducted one or two days after the attack. we don't have the basic information about what was said the night of the attack, as of this date. so i remember the episode pretty well. our democratic friends felt like a john bolton didn't have the information needed to make an informed decision about ambassador bolton's qualifications. john bolton, the then ambassador, and democratic saying we're not going to go, we're not going to consider this domination domination in till we get basic answers to our concern. all i can do is that the concerns i have are greater today than they were before, and we're not even close to getting the basic answers. [inaudible] >> i have many more questions that need to be answered. [inaudible] >> ambassador rice released a statement about that meeting with senators mccain, graham and kelly ayotte saying in part in the course of the meeting we explained that the talking points provided by the intelligence community and the initial assessment upon which they were based were incorrect in the key respect. there
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7